In the winter of 1974 an article by the late Reverend Wesley Walters entitled "Joseph
Smith's Bainbridge, N.Y., Court Trials" appeared in the Westminster Theological
Journal.1 In this article Reverend Walters attempted to show that on March 20, 1826,
Joseph Smith was convicted in a court of law of glass looking. The purpose of this
paper is to show that Walters drew unwarranted conclusions from the evidence he
presented, and that his goal was not to learn the truth about Joseph Smith's 1826
interaction with the law, but rather was to discredit Joseph Smith as prophet material.

THE 1830 TRIAL

Walters' article begins with a discussion of an undisputed trial of Joseph Smith that
took place in 1830. Walters first quotes that part of Smith's trial account which
provides details about when and where the trial occurred. He does not quote Smith's
account of the testimony or verdict.2
He then announces:

"There is now contemporary evidence to confirm Smith's story of this trial..."3

This evidence consists of the constable's and justice's bills of expenses.
The bills4
show only that:

1. The date of the trial was July 1, 1830.
2. The charge was being a disorderly person.
3. Twelve witnesses were called.
4. Joseph Smith was held for one day and was fed three meals.
5. Ten subpoenas were issued.

The bills contain no testimony or verdict. They confirm part of Smith's story, but by no
means do they confirm the items of most interest--the testimony presented and the
disposition of the case. Since the bills make no reference to the testimony or verdict,
they neither confirm nor refute this part of Smith's story.

2

Joseph Smith's account tells of religious persecution, with the law being used as a
weapon against him. According to Smith, the warrant for his arrest was served just
prior to the scheduled start of a worship service,5 and the constable told him that the
charge of being a "disorderly person" referred to the preaching of the Book of
Mormon.6 Smith recounts Josiah Stowell's testimony:

"'Did not the prisoner, Joseph Smith, have a horse of you?'
'Yes.'
'Did not he go to you and tell you that an angel had appeared unto him and
authorized him to get the horse from you?'
'No, he told me no such story.'
'Well, how had he the horse of you?'
'He bought him of me as any other man would.'
'Have you had your pay?'
'That is not your business.'
The question being again put, the witness replied:
'I hold his note for the price of the horse, which I consider as good as the pay;
for I am well acquainted with Joseph Smith, Jun., and know him to be an honest
man; and if he wishes, I am ready to let him have another horse on the same
terms.'"7

A. W. Benton, the man who filed the disorderly person complaint against Smith, also
wrote an account of this 1830 trial.8
Benton also relates Stowell's testimony:

"Did Smith ever tell you there was money hid in a certain place which he
mentioned? Yes. Did he tell you, you could find it by digging?
Yes. Did you
dig? Yes. Did you find any money? No. Did he not lie to you then, and deceive
you? NO, the money was there, but we did not get quite to it! How do you know
it was there? Smith said it was."9

The Benton and Smith accounts of Stowell's testimony differ at every point.
Which
version is an accurate rendition of what was said in the courtroom, or are Smith and
Benton, for different purposes, quoting different parts of Stowell's testimony, both of
which are accurate? It is impossible to tell from the bills, for they say nothing about the
testimony.

What about the verdict? Smith says he was acquitted.10
Benton does not provide a
verdict.

Notice how Walters handles the details of the 1830 trial:

1. He quotes Smith for the charge, arrest, time of the trial, the name of the
Justice, and the name of one witness (Stowell). He also states that
Stowell's daughters were witnesses. He gives no further information from
Smith, or from sources friendly to Smith.

3

2. He quotes Benton's account of the testimony, leading the reader to
believe that this account is complete and accurate. While he does
mention that Smith left an account of the testimony, he implies that it is
not accurate:

"This material could be verified as to accuracy if we could locate
Justice Chamberlin's docket book..."11

3. While he does indicate that Benton filed the disorderly person complaint
against Smith,12 this fact is mentioned only in passing, and no special
attention is drawn to it. How many of Walters' readers will notice that the
only information he gives about the trial testimony comes from the man
who filed the complaint against Smith?

4. The remainder of Benton's remarks, which Walters does not quote, show
that Benton strongly disliked Mormons in general and Smith in particular,
and that he (Benton) believed that Mormons would lie under oath in
court.13 By not presenting this information, Walters effectively hides
Benton's anti-Mormon feelings from his readers, leaving them with the
view that Benton is unbiased.

5. By quoting both Mormon and non-Mormon sources, Walters appears to
be neutral toward both groups. But look again! What he quotes from
Mormon sources give only mechanical details of the trial. As important as
this information is, it is not the crucial information -- the testimony and
verdict. For this the reader is treated to Benton's highly biased account.
Walters appears to play fair with both sides when in reality he is urging
his readers to accept Benton's anti-Mormon interpretation of the trial.

6. Walters' conclusion based upon Benton's account of the 1830 trial is that:

"there can no longer be any doubt that prior to his printing and sale
of the Book of Mormon, he [Smith] had gained part of his
livelihood by 'glass looking' for hidden treasure."14

This conclusion is not warranted by the evidence, even when it is presented in Walters'
highly distorted fashion. His reasoning is:

1. We now have bills that verify Smith was tried as a disorderly person in
1830.

4

2. These bills show that Benton's account of the testimony is accurate, and
that his contention that Smith was a glass looker is actually true.

3. Therefore we know Smith was a glass looker before the printing of the
Book of Mormon.

Despite five pages of discussion, Walters fails to show how the existence of the bills
proves Benton's account of the trial and statements about Smith's glass looking to be
accurate. Walters selectively uses the evidence in a case of special pleading to
convince the reader that the existence of the bills proves the anti-Mormon stories of
Smith's glass looking are true, when in fact they prove nothing of the sort. Walters'
readers need to ask several questions about his methods:

Why doesn't he evaluate Benton's remarks in light of the fact that Benton
was the one who brought the charge against Smith and had no use for
Smith and the Mormons?

Why doesn't he provide Smith's account of the trial testimony as well as
that of Benton? Since there have been religious frauds, an objective
researcher would agree that Benton might be telling the truth. However,
there also are also well-documented cases of religious persecution. Smith's account of this trial should be presented for the reader's
evaluation.

Why does he put Benton's statements in the best light and imply, without
evidence, that Smith's statements are untrustworthy?

I suggest three answers to these questions:

Walters was not a neutral historian trying to ascertain what happened
between Smith and the law. Rather, he was predisposed against Smith
and out to discredit him.

He wanted the readers to accept it as established fact that Smith was a
glass looker, despite the poor quality of the evidence used to support that
assertion.

He wanted the reader to accept his twisted logic that the bills verify the
anti-Mormon account of the 1830 trial. This is crucial for his discussion of
the 1826 trial.

5

THE 1826 TRIAL

Having concluded that Smith was indeed a glass looker and a scoundrel, Walters next
tackles the 1826 trial. He starts by again quoting Benton about Smith's 1825 money
digging activities as a glass looker for Stowell.15
He then presents the justice's and
constable's bills with the statement that:

"the discovery...of two bills from the officials who participated in the arrest and
trial of Joseph Smith at South Bainbridge in 1826 confirm this story beyond
question."16

Again, no testimony or verdict is recorded. Walters emphasizes that the term "the
glass looker" in Neely's bill proves that Smith was indeed a glass looker, and as
corroboration refers in a footnote to a statement made by Isaac Hale, Smith's father-in-law, where Hale says that Smith referred to himself as a glass looker.18
A comparison
of Hale's statement with Joseph Smith's history show that Walters is again drawing
unwarranted conclusions and suppressing information about Hale which the reader
needs for a proper evaluation of Hale's statement. The reader needs to know that:

The Smith family stated that Joseph's reputation as a money digger
originated from his work with Stowell in late 1825. According to the family,
Stowell had hired Joseph to help search for a mine.19

Hale's statement is not contemporary with the alleged money digging and
glass looking activities, but was given in 1834 after Smith had made
enemies because of the publication of the Book of Mormon and the
founding of a church. Hale, a devout Methodist, considered Smith to be a
religious fraud.20

By emphasizing that Hale was Smith's father-in-law, Walters hopes to convince the
reader that Hale and Smith were on friendly enough terms that Smith would confide in
Hale, who was therefore in a position to know first-hand what Smith was doing.
In fact,
Smith boarded with the Hales while working for Stowell. Hale didn't approve of Smith's
occupation, which at that time was helping Stowell look for a mine, and refused to let
Joseph marry his daughter.21

6

In January, 1827, the twenty-two-year-old Emma eloped
with Joseph,22 much to her father's annoyance.
Smith irritated Hale again by refusing
to show him what were supposed to have been the plates from which the Book of
Mormon was taken.23

Thus Hale is not a neutral witness, but held several grudges against Smith and
regarded him as a religious fraud. Yet Walters implies that this supposed self-designation as a glass looker comes from a source which is neutral or perhaps even
friendly to Smith.

Walters states that Smith referred to himself as a glass looker, yet he does not present
any statement of Smith's where he so referred to himself. Instead, Walters quotes Hale
allegedly quoting Smith eight years after the fact. Therefore, on this point Walters
relies on eight-year-old hearsay. This quotation approach is typical of anti-Mormon
writers--quote someone else allegedly quoting what Smith supposedly told them
secretly, and assume without further corroborating evidence that Smith actually did say
the things attributed to him.24

By providing Hale's statement that Smith referred to himself as a glass looker, without
giving the reader the background necessary to evaluate that statement, Walters hopes
the reader will accept it as an unquestionable fact that Smith actually was a glass
looker. To the best of this writer's knowledge, no one has yet presented legitimate
evidence from Smith himself, or from sources known to be friendly to Smith, that he
ever referred to himself as a glass looker. The two documents supposedly from friendly
sources which indicate Smith was involved in this activity (the 1825 letter from Smith to
Josiah Stowell and the "Salamander" letter of 1830 from Martin Harris to W. W. Phelps)
have both been shown to be modern forgeries executed by document-forger Mark
Hofmann.25

At this point another question needs to be asked: Is it possible to account for the use
of the term "glass looker" in Neely's bill and Hale's statement in a way that is consistent
with the Smith family's account of this period in their lives? According to the Smiths:

The Angel showed Joseph the plates and Urim and Thummim in
September, 1823. They were buried in the ground in a stone box. Joseph was not allowed to take them, but instead returned each year (for
four years) to receive instruction from Moroni.26

Joseph continued from this time to receive instruction from the Lord.27

7

On September 22, 1824, Smith attempted to take the plates out of the
ground. They disappeared when he set them down with the thought of
seeing if anything of monetary value was stored with them.28

Being alarmed, Smith prayed, and was chastened by Moroni for not
following instructions. Looking up again, he saw the plates and attempted
to take them but was thrown away with great violence.29

Peepstones were used to find the location of the treasure.
(The Urim and
Thummim?)

Smith could never get the treasure because:

As soon as he dug to it, it disappeared (see number 3 above), or

When he reached it, an earthquake would move it (see number 4
above), or

A ghost guarded it. (The angel Moroni?)

There would be some kind of religious ceremony to allow him to get the
treasure. (Praying?)

The parallels between the Smith account and the anti-Mormon accounts should be
obvious. While Joseph instructed his family not to relate the things he was telling them
to anyone, over a period of years rumors were certain to spread. Indeed, it was the
rumor that Smith could discern things invisible to the naked eye which prompted
Stowell to hire him to find an old Spanish mine that was supposed to be on his
property.31 If the Smith family's account of Joseph's activities is the truth, one would
expect rumors of treasure hunting, money digging, and glass looking to be circulated by
skeptics and other unbelievers.

There exist at least two explanations for the term "glass looker" appearing in Hale's
statement and on Neely's bill. The two that are diametrically opposed are:

The anti-Mormon accounts are true, and Smith really was involved with
money digging and glass looking.

8

Smith's account is true, and nonbelievers circulated rumors about his
finding the plates of the Book of Mormon and the Urim and Thummim
(and how they were to be used), which became stories of money digging,
peepstones and glass looking.

If both explanations equally account for the term "glass looker," then the presence of
this term in Neely's bill can't be used to determine which explanation (or whether some
combination of both) is the truth. Walters takes the view that the only way Smith could
have a reputation as a glass looker is if he really was a glass looker. This is nonsense.

THE ACCOUNTS OF THE 1826 TRIAL

The first published account of the trial was an article by Charles Marshall which
appeared in England in February, 1873, in Frasers magazine. Marshall claimed to
have copied the account from the original document in the possession of an unnamed
woman in Salt Lake City. The Frasers article was reprinted in New York in April, 1873,
in Eclectic magazine.

In 1877, William D. Purple wrote his personal reminiscences of the trial at which he
claimed to have taken notes. This was published on May 3, 1877, in the Chenengo
Union. In 1883, Bishop Daniel Tuttle published a copy of the alleged "official court
record" in the New Scharf-Herzog Encyclopedia. He said he had obtained it from
Emily Pearsall, niece of Justice Neely, who worked in the Episcopalian mission in Utah.
She was probably the woman from whom Marshall had obtained his information.
Tuttle
later stated that he had given the original manuscript of the trial account to the
Methodists. They printed a copy of it in the Utah Christian Advocate in 1886.
The
manuscript then disappeared and has not been seen since. The manuscript was at all
times in the possession of the non-Mormons, and there is no evidence that any
Mormon ever saw or examined it.

The Mormons have maintained that there is something fishy about the alleged court
record. In 1831 Benton said that Smith had run afoul of the law some years previously.
From 1826 to 1877 Purple supposedly told many people about the trial, recounting the
testimonies and verdict in detail.32
However, no mention of the trial appeared anywhere
from 1826 to 1873 except for Benton's vague 1831 reference and an even vaguer
reference made by Joel King Noble in 1842.33
While Noble says Smith was
condemned by the court, this does not prove that Smith was found guilty. According to
John Reid, Smith's attorney at the 1830 trial, Smith was condemned by the court (i.e.,
given a tongue-lashing), despite having just been found not guilty.34

Keep in mind that after 1830 anti-Mormons were zealously digging for any dirt they
could find about Smith. Not one of these truth-seekers ever reported talking to anyone
who attended the trial, or any of those that Purple had told of the trial, or to Purple
himself.

9

Furthermore, Isaac Hale, with whom Smith boarded while working for
Stowell,
never mentioned the 1826 trial, though he made several critical statements about Smith
and his religion. While negative evidence can never conclusively demonstrate that the
alleged court record is not accurate, if, as this alleged record states, Smith admitted to
glass looking and being a fraud, it seems incredible that only two vague references to
the trial appeared before 1873. The slightest hint that Smith was indeed found guilty of
being a fraud would have caused his enemies to leave no stone unturned to find
evidence of it.

On the other hand, if a trial took place and Smith was acquitted, the fact of a trial could
not be used against him. His enemies would have no motive to pursue the question.
Since neither Benton nor Noble provides a verdict, their statements provide no
evidence for the trial outcome. They merely state that Smith was "condemned," which
may simply mean, as it does in the case of the 1830 trial, that there were no grounds
for finding him guilty, but the court, disbelieving his account of his religious activities,
gave him a tongue-lashing and dismissed the case. In support of this view, it should be
noted that eyewitness Purple states that Smith was acquitted in 1826, which statement
directly contradicts the alleged court record.

Prior to the discovery of Neely's bill, several Mormon writers concluded that there was
no 1826 trial.35 This conclusion was based on inconsistencies in the various accounts
of the trial, irregularities in the supposed proceedings, and the disappearance of the
supposed original documents. In the absence of documentation that the trial actually
took place, these writers were quite justified in their conclusions, especially considering
that the non-Mormons had complete control of what documents were available.
A
comparison of Purple's account with that of the alleged court record provides many
reasons for suspicion.

Now, however, we have evidence that some sort of judicial proceeding36 did take place
in 1826. Once again, Walters' incorrect reasoning is that the mere existence of the
bills somehow proves that the printed accounts of this trial are accurate.
The cost
figures which appear in the Frasers article demonstrate that Tuttle did have a document
that was somehow connected to the trial. This document has vanished, and only
printings purporting to be accurate copies of it exist.

Nibley devoted twenty-three,37 and Kirkham devoted more than 120 pages to the trial.38
These men raised many questions about the authenticity of the printed alleged court
record. Walters takes seven pages to deal superficially with only a few of these
questions.39 However, his readers have no way of knowing that, for the most part,
these are the least significant objections these Mormons raised. Once again, Walters
appears to be giving fair consideration to both sides of the issue, when in reality he is
once again using special pleading to support his position that Smith was a fraud while
ignoring evidence to the contrary.

10

The most significant objection Walters considers is the Mormon speculation that
Marshall or Tuttle might have altered the document prior to publication.40
Walters
casually dismisses this by pointing out that the alteration would have been noticed by
Miss Pearsall.41 There are any number of scenarios which will account for the
consistency between the various publications of the alleged court record under the
circumstances of forgery. Some of these scenarios are:

Using Justice Neely's actual court record for names, the date, amounts,
etc., anyone could have written a fictitious account of the trial, which Miss
Pearsall then took to Utah.

Miss Pearsall forged the alleged court record prior to giving Marshall a
copy and Tuttle the original of her forgery.

Miss Pearsall had the genuine record in her possession, which Marshall
used as the basis for his own forgery. Since Miss Pearsall died in 1872,
she could not have known about this forgery. Bishop Tuttle, seizing the
golden opportunity, then went along with Marshall's forgery, making his
own document from Marshall's article. It was this document that Bishop
Tuttle turned over to the Utah Christian Tract Society.

The reader is urged to come up with other scenarios on his own.

If a fictitious account was written, the points of difference between it and the original
would be precisely the things the bills do not corroborate--the testimony and verdict.
There would be no need to change the list of expenses, justices' names, trial date, or
anything of that nature (indeed, it is the presence of some of those items in Neely's bill
which lends credibility to the printed alleged court record). Therefore, the fact that the
bills suggest that Tuttle may have had in his possession something traceable to a
genuine Neely document does not verify the testimony in the printed versions.

At the close of his account of the trial, eyewitness Purple stated:

"It is hardly necessary to say that, as the testimony of Deacon Stowell could not
be impeached, the prisoner was discharged..."42

This agrees with a brief 1835 reference Oliver Cowdery made to this court action:

"While in that country, some very officious person complained of him as a
disorderly person, and brought him before the authorities of the county; but there
being no cause of action, he was honorably acquitted."43

11

Contrary to Walters' view that Purple misremembered the verdict,44 this writer's
experience suggests that Purple probably remembered the verdict correctly, though he
may have misremembered details of the testimony. In 1978 this writer served on a jury
that convicted the defendant of attempted theft. While the writer remembers the verdict
clearly, he remembers only a few words of testimony verbatim, and this only because
that portion of the testimony startled everyone in the courtroom. Purple's account was
written after the New York publication of Marshall's article, which Purple may have
read, resulting in an "enhancement" of his memory of the trial.

It is precisely this possibility of incorporating second- or third-hand information into the
mind that is the reason for judges' instructions to juries (including the jury the writer
served on) that prior to being sequestered to reach a verdict, they should not discuss
the case among themselves, read newspaper accounts of the case, or examine
evidence not presented in the court.

There is no doubt that a fictitious account of the 1826 trial could have been written in
such a manner as to be consistent with all that is known of the individuals involved and
also be the source for all of the printed versions. The question is not Could it have
been done? but Was it done? Ultimately, the question boils down to the honesty and
integrity of Pearsall, Tuttle, and Marshall. Walters is unwilling to consider this
question.

Without examining Neely's original record, it is impossible for one to prove or disprove
that the printed "court record" is accurate. The bills verify the printed accounts only if
one assumes that people who don't like Mormons never lie about them. There is,
however, an ample history of men of supposed unquestioned integrity who have altered
Mormon statements or have fabricated "evidence."45
Here are a few examples:

In 1832, the Mormons printed a revelation in their Missouri newspaper,
The Evening and Morning Star.46
Eber D. Howe garbled this into a
slanderous caricature which he published in his book as the Mormon
belief.47

In 1839, the Reverend D. R. Austin discussed the Spaulding manuscript
theory of the origin of the Book of Mormon with Matilda Davidson, the
former wife of Solomon Spaulding. He then wrote a "statement," signed
the lady's name, and sent it to the Reverend John Stoors, who had it
published in the Boston Recorder in April, 1839. The first Mrs. Davidson
knew of the "statement" she was supposed to have signed was when she
read it in the newspaper.48

In 1844, Alexander Campbell and Adamson Bentley, two ministers and
co-founders of what is known today as the Church of Christ, invented a conversation which was supposed to have taken place in 1827 between
Bentley and Sidney Rigdon.49 The purpose of this invented conversation
was to prove that Rigdon and Smith modified the Spaulding manuscript
into the Book of Mormon.

12

In 1906 lawyer Theodore Schroeder quoted from a work of fiction written
by Parley P. Pratt in an attempt to demonstrate that Rigdon and Smith
had met before the publication of the Book of Mormon.50
However,
Schroeder didn't tell his readers that he was quoting fiction. He
presented Pratt's fiction as a speech given by Pratt in 1843 or 1844,
thereby converting a novel into evidence for the Spaulding theory.51

More recently, the "Reverend" "Dr." Walter Martin,52 until his death a very
active anti-Mormon, stated that Smith was fined $2.68 for glass looking by
Justice Neely, thereby converting Neely's bill to the county for services
rendered into a verdict and fine levied against Smith.53

Over a period of several years, Mormon apostate
Mark Hofmann forged
numerous documents which, if genuine, would have verified the
anti-Mormon tales of Smith's early years. These discredited documents
included the Anthon Transcript, a letter from Joseph Smith to Josiah Stowell, and a letter from Martin Harris to W. W. Phelps.54

So much for the honesty and integrity of ministers and other people, professional and
otherwise. These examples demonstrate that the Mormons have ample reason to be
suspicious of the motivations and methods of anti-Mormons, regardless of the
reputation or position these people hold. The integrity of Pearsall, Marshall, and Tuttle
is most certainly open to question.

While there are many discrepancies between Purple's reminiscences and the printed
accounts of the trial published by Marshall and Tuttle, the most obvious one is the
outcome of the trial. Purple stated that because of the testimony in Smith's favor, he
was found not guilty and discharged, while according to the alleged court record,
despite the testimony in Smith's favor, he confessed to being a scoundrel and was
found guilty. Incredibly, Walters dismisses this discrepancy as minor, merely saying
that Purple had the mistaken impression that Smith was discharged!55

SUMMARY

Wesley Walters concludes that Smith was found guilty of being a glass looker in a
court of law on March 20, 1826. To bolster his case, lend it credibility, and finally justify
this conclusion he first discusses the 1830 trial. His approach is to give Benton's anti-Mormon account of the testimony without giving Smith's differing account or
making it clear to readers that Benton was an enemy of Smith and the Mormons.

13

He
then tries to persuade the reader that Smith referred to himself as a glass looker by
presenting Isaac Hale's testimony without noting that this evidence was eight-year-old
hearsay from a man who had several grudges against Smith. Walters incorrectly
concludes that the finding of the justices' bills somehow verifies Benton's account of the
testimony of the 1830 trial and his comments about Smith's glass looking.

Walters' approach to the 1826 trial is similar except his case is even weaker.
He
concludes that the finding of Justice Neely's and Sheriff DeZeng's bills somehow verify
the printed version of the alleged court record of the trial, which first appeared in 1873,
forty-seven years after the event. He does not take the Mormon objections seriously,
but, while appearing to objectively evaluate them, for the most part he dismisses them
with an airy wave of the pen. Without providing evidence, or informing his readers of
his procedures, he assumes that the Mormon accounts can sometimes be trusted when
mechanical details are the issue, but Mormon information is unreliable when dealing
with anything of substance. Conversely, also without evidence, or informing his
readers of the nature of his sources, he assumes that anti-Mormon information can be
trusted implicitly.

Walters makes no attempt to explain the contents of Neely's bill, or the glass looker
references of Hale and Benton, in a manner that is consistent with the Smith family's
account of this period of their lives. Walters takes great pains to appear to consider
both sides of the issue while actually presenting only one side.

CONCLUSION

Walters' conclusions about the 1830 and 1826 trials are not well-supported by the
evidence. Therefore, he uses an incredibly circuitous chain of tortured reasoning to
convince the reader that he has proven his case. Walters is not an objective historian.
He is an anti-Mormon of deepest feelings who finds that calm-toned pseudoscholarship
and special pleading are useful tools for generating anti-Mormon feelings in his
readers.

His ultimate objective in writing about the trials is to lend credibility to the printed
version of the alleged "court record," which on its face has many strikes against it as
being a truthful account of Joseph Smith's 1826 involvement with the law. If one were
to apply Walters' reasoning to the trial of Jesus Christ before Pontius Pilate, one would
be forced to conclude that the mere fact of Jesus' appearance before Pilate proves that
the anti-Christian explanation for Christ's crucifixion was correct. This
explanation states that Jesus
was punished for his crimes.56

It is indicative of the strength of the Mormon position that Walters' scribal gymnastics
were considered necessary in this attempt to discredit Joseph Smith.

19. Lucy Smith,
Biographical Sketches of Joseph Smith the Prophet, and his
Progenitors for many Generations (Liverpool, 1853):92. Hereafter referred to
as Lucy Mack Smith, Biographical Sketches. See also Lucy Mack Smith,
History of Joseph Smith by His Mother, Preston Nibley, ed. (Bookcraft,
1958):92. Hereafter referred to as Lucy Mack Smith, History. See also
HC I:17.

32. William D. Purple, "Joseph Smith, The Originator of Mormonism: Historical
Reminiscences of the Town of Afton," Chenengo Union, May 3, 1877, as
reprinted in Francis W. Kirkham, A New Witness for Christ in America
(Brigham Young University, 1959):362. Hereafter referred to as Purple, 1877.

36. It is not the purpose of this paper to examine the question of what kind of
proceeding occurred, whether it was what today would be called a preliminary
hearing, or some kind of actual trial. There were several different types of trials
at that place and time. See Gordon A. Madsen, "Joseph Smith's 1826 Trial:
The Legal Setting," BYU Studies 30:2 (Spring 1990), 91-108. Madsen makes no
attempt to determine whether the proceeding was a full-blown trial. He assumes
it was. The purpose of his article is to determine what kind of trial Joseph Smith
underwent.

43. Oliver Cowdery to W. W. Phelps, Latter Day Saints' Messenger and Advocate,
II,1 (October 1835):201. Cowdery's reference is most definitely to the 1826 trial and not the 1830 trial.
The context for the reference to a trial is Smith's work for Josiah Stowell, and his boarding with the Hales.
After stating that Smith was acquitted, Cowdery goes on to say that

"From this time forward he continued to receive instructions
concerning the coming forth of the fulness of the gospel, from the mouth of the heavenly messenger until he was directed to visit
again the place where the records was deposited."

Thus it is clear that Cowdery was referring to a trial that took place
while Smith was boarding with Hale and working for Stowell, before he received the plates.

45. Examples 1-4 are found in B. H. Roberts, "The Origin of the Book of Mormon (A
Reply to Mr. Theodore Schroeder)," American Historical Magazine, 3,6
(November, 1908):558-565; 4,1 (January 1909):40-44; 4,2 (March 1909):169-172.
Hereafter referred to as Roberts.

46. "Extracts from the Laws for the Government of the Church of Christ," Evening
and Morning Star, I,2 (July, 1832). See also The Doctrine and Covenants of
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (The Church of Jesus Christ
of Latter-Day Saints, 1981) Section 42:43-52.

52. Walter Martin was neither an ordained minister nor held an accredited doctorate.
See Robert L. and Rosemary Brown, They Lie in Wait to Deceive, III
(Brownsworth Publishing, 1986).

53. Walter Martin,
The Maze of Mormonism, (Vision House Publishers, 1978):36. In addition, this author attended a meeting held on September 11, 1978, at Bear
Creek Presbyterian Church in Lakewood, Colorado, when Walter Martin spoke
about Mormonism. In that meeting he stated:

"Joseph Smith was convicted on March 20, 1826, of being a fortune teller,
and for any of you Mormons in the audience who don't believe me, I have
the evidence right here."

He then held up a photocopy of the Neely bill (which was taken from page thirty-three of Jerald and Sandra Tanner's
Mormonism: Shadow or Reality), showed
it to the audience, turned to it and appearing to read the bill, said:

"Joseph the glass looker, guilty, fined $2.68."

He then turned to the audience and commented:

"He wasn't even a good enough fortune teller to get a decent fine."

The above information was recorded by the writer just twenty-one days after the
meeting in a letter dated October 2, 1978, to Mr. Stanley W. Paher of Las
Vegas, Nevada.